1. Both the writ applications are taken up together as the issue involved in these two writ applications is as to whether nominee or Joint Account holder would be entitled to withdrawal of the amounts on death of the Account holder in preference to the legal heirs.

2. Heard the iearned counsel for the parties.

3. One Ranpal Bahadur Singh @ Mohan Jee. was having various bank accounts. Two of the Accounts were with the State Bank of India, Station Road Branch Ara and Allahabad Ara Branch, Ara. The number of Saving Bank Account of S.B.I. is 0119013799 whereas that of Allahabad Bank is 16328. The aforesaid Ranpal Bahadur Singh happened to be father-in-law of petitioner.

4. The claim of the petitioner is that Late Ranpal Bahadur Singh @ Mohan Jee opened a Joint Account with the petitioner in the S.B.I. Apart from this the petitioner was also made nominee. Late Ranpal Bahadur Singh also made him his nominee of Saving Bank Account No. 16328 of Allahabad Bank.

5. In support of his contention petitioner annexed Photostat copies of the Pass Books of S.B.I, as well as Allahabad Bank. Nevertheless, the Pass Book of S.B.I, does not clearly show that the petitioner was a Joint Account holder with his father-in-law, Late Ranpal Bahadur Singh.

6. The petitioner on basis of aforesaid claims has filed these two separate writ applications for withdrawal of the sum of Rs. 5,13,799.90 paise and Rs. 2.61,228.40 paise with interest lying with S.B.I. and Allahabad Bank respectively.

7. The petitioner submits that he is a nominee in one case and both Account holder and nominee in another case. As such he would be the only person entitled to receive the aforesaid deposits. in support of his contention the petitioner placed reliance on section 45ZA of the Banking Regulations Act. 1949 as well as Circular dated 9th June, 2005 of Reserve Bank of India. Curiously enough the petitioner has not stated that son of Late Ranpal Bahadur Singh had predeceased him leaving behind his wife and three minor sons. However, these facts have come to fore in this direction in the counter affidavit of the bank dated 29.7.2009.

8. In para 7 of the counter affidavit it is stated that Late Ranpai Bahadur Singh had a son Avinash Kumar Singh @ Mantu Singh, who had predeceased him. One Chinta Mani Devi wife of Late Avinash Kumar Singh had filed a succession case being Succession No. 19 of 2005 under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act for issuance of succession certificate before Sub-Judge 1st, Bhojpur at Ara. It would appear from the succession case annexed to counter affidavit that Late Avinash Kumar Singh died leaving behind his three minor sons. In the aforesaid succession case, one Anju Devi wife of Ramesh Kumar Singh (petitioner) has been impleaded as opposite party no. 1. It is unfortunate that the petitioner has not brought the aforesaid fact to the notice of this Court in the writ applications. It is submitted by the bank that dispensation of justice demands that money lying in the Account of Late. Ranpal Bahadur Singh should be equally distributed among the heirs of late Ranpal Bahadur Singh.

9. The nomination for payment of depositors money and the right of the nominee to receive it on death of depositor has been enumerated in section 45ZA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 under Part 3. The provision allows depositor or depositors to nominate one person to whom in the event of death of the sole depositor or the depositors the amount may be returned by the banking company.

10. Clause 2 of Section 45ZA of Banking Regulation Act states that on death of the sole depositor, the nominee would become entitled to all the rights in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons unless the nomination is varied or cancelled. It further states that payment of deposited amount to the depositors nominee would constitute a full and valid discharge of the banking company of its liability in respect of the deposit. However, the proviso to sub-section (4) of